I began a new project this week that I’m really excited about – writing a book. I’ve written a few million words worth of essays, but never a whole book, so this will be a new experience for me. Thankfully, I don’t have to do it alone. I’ve got a co-author, Wesley Elsberry, whose knowledge and insight will undoubtedly make me look much better than I am. The subject of the book? The Dover trial. We are aiming at doing a thorough history of the trial from beginning to end and beyond.

We’ll trace the changes in strategies employed by the antievolutionists from Scopes through “teach the controversy” as well and we plan to include an appendix that offers a legal analysis of Judge Jones’ ruling. The first step is writing the preface (a history of evolution trials) and one of the middle chapters and using those as sample chapters to pitch the book. Michael Shermer has already agreed to read the manuscript and give us an endorsement/cover blurb (very important in the publishing world), so that’s a big boost. We’ll be lining up a few more potential endorsers as well.

We’ve been encouraged to submit the project to the big four academic presses and that is what we plan to do. I’m 90% sure that Prometheus would publish the book regardless, but if we can get it published by a major press that would be preferable. And especially if Paramount does end up making a movie about the trial, the sky’s the limit for the book. In the meantime, of course, expect me to continue to rant and rave here as I always have.

Comments

I happened to read most of the hearing transcripts and of course the ruling of that trial. As I was reading the hearing transcripts one thought that went through my head over and over – this would make for a compelling drama, but an unbiased matter-of-fact report would appear to be so over the top I doubt people would believe it was unbiased. The ruling itself was anticlimatic for me at least based on the heaarings.

It was like watching a football game where the score ended up being 220 – 0; with the ID team’s owner claiming he didn’t own the team during the game, and a controversy after the game erupts as the losing team claims they lost a 220 – 0 game because of poor refereeing, and reported that way without comment by the media.

I was especially impressed with Dr. Forrest’s testimony and how the judge handled the hearings. I’m disappointed that a judge who did such a great job is now being crucified in the popular media by conservative pundits without journalists hosting those outlets refuting their rhetorical fallacies.

I’m confident your book will go a long way in setting the record straight.

Writing that kind of book, I’m curious your take on Edward Larson’s work (e.g. Summer For the Gods)?

I’ve actually not read Larson’s book yet, but I’m familiar with a lot of the history. He was not the first to point out that much of the trial was contrived and that Inherit the Wind is highly inaccurate. In a way, our book may end up functioning as a preemptive fact check on the movie that is in the works (if it ever gets made, of course). Any such movie is bound to be highly inaccurate and we’ll be putting out the reality likely before the movie is even out.

Wesley and I are in a unique position to write this story and add a lot of behind the scenes detail that the public doesn’t know. Between us, we know almost all of the principal players and we were directly involved, he more than me of course, in the preparations for the trial. We have a very long list of items that are important to the story and that show how arguments and events at the trial were developed out of the public spotlight, and almost none of them are known to the public. So there’s a lot of story to tell.

I happened to read most of the hearing transcripts and of course the ruling of that trial. As I was reading the hearing transcripts one thought that went through my head over and over – this would make for a compelling drama, but an unbiased matter-of-fact report would appear to be so over the top I doubt people would believe it was unbiased.

Interesting observation. The situation really does lend itself to a natural dramatic reading, and I think that the book will lend itself to that without any distorting of the facts at all. There really were several Perry Mason moments, both in the preparations for the trial and during the trial itself, and they lend themselves to an ideal dramatic arc. You’ve got the story of this sleepy town that suddenly finds itself wrapped in a national controversy. You’ve got a trial with the attendant sideshows, including Darwin’s grandson showing up and creationist PT Barnum’s like Hovind showing up to do their schtick. You’ve got smoking guns being found on one side while the other side collapsed into backstabbing and infighting. You’ve got that infighting bubbling up publicly on C-SPAN during a forum in the middle of the trial. The dramatic elements of the story almost write itself, so it’s no surprise that Paramount saw a movie in it. But there’s also an enormous amount of background information that fleshes out the story.

Wow, I look forward to when the book is ready. With you and Wes working together it should be very well written and entertaining.

I’m not sure I’d like to see a movie of Kitzmiller. I can easily see Hollywood taking liberties in the facts to make it “more dramatic”. I can see them pushing a twist ending in where evidence is reveal after the trial that could be disputed, and perhaps Behe and Dembski looking to the future vowing to fight on. Yuck! Blech! Or the lawyers leaving the court house to crowds of drones praising Jebus and praying for the souls of the ACLU. Credits roll over “Onward Christian Soldiers”

Very cool! I will be eagerly anticipating the release of that book. I just got done reading the trial transcript while riding the ferry to work). It was long, detailed and at times riveting. Let’s hope that Paramount’s movie is at least half as good as “Inherit the Wind.”

When I got to the word “book” in your post, I wondered how long it would be before “Scope’s Trial” came up. I see it didn’t take long. If you and/or Wes decide you need to come to Dayton to visit the Scope’s trial museum, please let me know. I’ll make sure the guest room suite is available. Better yet, plan to come in early July and take in the Scope’s trial reenactment. Unlike Inherit the Wind, it’s straight from the trial transcripts. See you then!!!

Does this mean less blogging? If you say “No”, I’m cutting my fingers off!

I hope it doesn’t interfere much with my blogging. There are other things I could cut back on first, I think. I suspect there might be a few specific times when my posting is reduced because, for example, I’m out of town interviewing someone for the story or doing research for it. But those would be short periods of time.

Will you be including the reams of crap that came out in the DI’s press releases/Will Dembski’s blog etc etc?

To the extent it’s relevant, yes. For instance, we will almost certainly refer to Dembski’s blog postings when dealing with his decision to withdraw as a witness (or being forced to resign, depending on which side you believe). And we will be attaching an appendix that is a legal analysis of the ruling. That will likely involve answering some of the DI’s many arguments against it.

We’ll at least submit to the “big four” academic presses – Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford and University of California. We may well submit it to several others as well, I guess it depends on whether it gets accepted by the first group.

As long as the project has gone public, we might as well solicit readers to suggest titles. Glenn Branch is already in for The Great Panda Trial, an homage to L. Sprague de Camp’s The Great Monkey Trial, and Fall for the Idiots, an homage to Larson’s Summer for the Gods. I’ve gotta say that of the two, I strongly prefer the former over the latter.

I’ve spent 6 weeks plaguing everyone ad nauseam about “psychomarketing”, maybe it’s put-up or shut-up time for me. I was a pretty good headline writer, do well with my own titles, have two degrees in fiction writing, and I’ve read or skimmed long parts of the trial transcripts. Guess I’m screwed if I don’t come up with something!

I’ll give it to the ol’ subconscious to chew on for awhile, but don’t expect a miracle …. hmmm ….. miracle …. it would have been a miracle if …… no,no ….. Non-Miracle in Dov… …… nah. ….. how about ….. resurrection …. yeah, resurrection ….. Creationism’s Third Resurrection, Not! ………. nah, stupid ……. hmmmm ….. End Times for ID ….. that’s awful! … maybe ….. uuuuuuhhhh….. …..

On the theory that 90% of everything is crud, here’s a few shovels full… One of them I got from Ed. If you can figure out how to shine any of these up, or get to something better, drop a comment.

A Panda for the Suing101 Uses for a Dead IdeologyToo Late the PandaThe Call of the GrackleOne Panda Flew Over DoverThe Last of the PandasPride and PandasNight of the PandaA Panda in the DarkValley of the Panda PeopleReturn of the Panda PeopleInherit the WindbagsGone With the WindbagsWinds of DoverA Panda Falls in DoverNightmare in DoverThe Truth About PandasThe Truth About KitzmillerThe Panda ShowdownThe Panda BriefWhen Pandas Go BadDover TurningDecision at DoverThat Was for PracticeMark Twain Was RightThe Dover DiaryI Heard the Panda Call My NameLand of the PandaA Panda By Any Other NameA Panda of Their OwnDover DividedDover RevisitedThe Judge and the PandaTried and Found WantingThe Case of the Pious PandaThe Case of the Perilous PandaThe Case of the Perjured PandaThe Case of the Deceiving PandaThe Turn of the PandaDover: Reflection of Anytown, USAForty Days of DoverA Panda’s Day in CourtDesigns on DoverThe Panda’s ProgressA Little Loss of LibertyA Farewell to DoverThe Panda MastersThe Painted PandaDeception in DoverA Designed Deception in DoverDover Deceived

Wes: “Designs on Dover” ain’t bad, the only worry being that casual browsers will respond with “where the heck is Dover?”

I’d go for something that is more descriptive about the situation – specifically the fact that the entire reason we had the trial was because a bunch of creationist nutjobs were attempting to do an end-run round the laws keeping them out of the science classroom. It probably shouldn’t just rely on words like “Dover” and “intelligent design” that only mean anything to those who already know about the situation. Using “creationism” would be much better.

How about something like “Subversion: the defeat of the new Creationism”?

Good luck with the book – I’ll be sure to get a copy when it comes out.